Things I’d Like to Know About Why Exam Scripts Turn Out As They Do

No Comments
  • Is the high level of risk-aversion we keep seeing related to candidates’ anticipated future prospects? (‘Pedestrian’ is the word one of the senior staff has been kicking around for the past couple of years; ‘workmanlike’ tends to be mine. It’s not outright flawed work, but it’s targetting adequacy when many candidates could be showing more evidence of actually doing some philosophy.)

  • Were the same people consistently risk-averse during the various stages of their schooldays?

  • Are the reasons predominantly psychological (fear of failure, lack of confidence...) or strategic (based on expected returns)?

  • Are the people who apparently haven’t grasped that there is writing an essay (in general), and then there is writing a philosophy essay, genuinely unaware of it (despite the feedback we provide for termly essays), or hoping to do well enough without undergoing the transition?

  • Are they, perhaps, just following what was drummed into them in their schooldays?

  • Why, every year, are there people who think adding birth and death dates after the names of canonical philosophers is a worthwhile use of exam time?

Would you like to be the first to respond...?

Comments usually take time to appear, because they are manually scrutinised for signs of spam. Please wait for your host to come along and set matters to rights.